The following are example of situations where objections may be raised.

i. Where a question is irrelevant. A question is irrelevant if it invites or cau

ses the witness to give evidence that is not related to the facts of the case at
hand. This type of objection is raised if a question does not make an elicit co
nsequential fact and therefore the question is rendered irrelevant.
ii. Where there is an immaterial and incomplete question (oftenly stated togethe
r meaning the question is not of the issues in the trial or the witness is not q
ualified to answer). A proper question must result to a logical answer that bear
s relevance to the issue at hand. If a question cannot produce a relevant answer
it is immaterial and an objection may be raised towards such a question. The ob
jection is referred to as a immateriality objection.
iii. Where the question is hearsay. A question is hearsay if it invites a witnes
s to offer an out-of-court statement to prove the truth of some matter in court.
Hearsay is what a witness was told by a second party and not what he heard firs
t hand. There are many exceptions to the hearsay rule.
iv. Where the question is leading. A question is leading if it is one that sugge
sts to the witness the answer the examining party desires. In other words, the q
uestion is putting in the witness s mouth. However, this type of question is allow
ed on cross-examination of a witness.
v. Where the question calls for a narrative answer. A question calls for a narra
tive answer if it invites the witness to narrate a series of occurrences, which
may produce irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible testimony. A question and answe
r interrogation is the standard format. It allows opposing counsel to object to
improper questions.
vi. Where the question is speculative. A question is speculative if it invites o
r causes the witness to speculate or answer on the basis of conjecture.
vii. Where a question misstates the evidence. A question misstates evidence if i
t misstates or misquotes the testimony of a witness or any other evidence produc
ed at a hearing or trial.
Where a question is too general. A question is too general, broad or indefinite
if it permits the witness to respond with testimony which may be irrelevant or o
therwise inadmissible. Each question should limit the witness to a specific answ
er on a specific subject.
ix. Where a question Calls for a conclusion. This is asking for an opinion and n
ot facts as is required in any trial.
x. Where the question involved is a Compound question. A compound question is on
e which has two or more question asked together. The questions are usually joine
d with the word or or the word and.
xi. Where the question lacks of foundation. A question lacks foundation if it is
referring to documents lacking testimony as to source or authenticity.
xii. Where a question assumes facts not in evidence. This happens if the questio
n presumes unproved facts to be true.
Where the witness has already answered a substantially similar question asked by
the same lawyer on the same subject matter, then an objection can be raised. Th
is is also known as a repetitive answer
Where the witness to concede to inferences drawn by the examiner from the facts
proved or assumed.
xv. Where a question is ambiguous. This is where a question may be misunderstood

by the witness since it may take more than one meaning.

An objection may also be based on the best evidence rule. The rule provides that
when physical evidence is available, a witness s testimony is inadequate and ther
efore may be challenged on the ground that there is better physical evidence. Ho
wever, if original documents are destroyed or lost, through no fault of either p
arty, the witness testimony may be an admissible substitute.
A lawyer may object if a question violates any of the common law or codified tes
timony privileges e.g. matrimonial communication privileges, lawyer-client privi
lege, doctor-patient privilege, priest penitent privilege, journalist s privilege,
e.t.c.
Where there has being an improper opinion. Generally, experts may offer certain
opinions in court as well as non-experts, as long as the opinions are based on t
he witness s perceptions and life experiences. The opinion helps the court underst
and the witness s testimony or determination of a fact in issue. Hence, their opin
ions are permitted in relation to certain things such as value of real property,
identity of individuals, competency of individuals, feelings, lighting conditio
ns, sound, size, weight, distance, intoxication, appearance, competency, e.t.c.
the opinions are improper if they are made outside the restricted areas and are
a ground for a objection.
A continuing objection. It is an objection of a series of questions about a rela
ted point. It may be made in the direction of the court to preserve certain issu
es for appeal without distracting the fact finder with an objection to every que
stion. It is also made where the objection itself is overruled, but the trial ju
dge permits the continuing of the objective to that part to be made silently so
that there are fewer interruptions. For example, where a lawyer is held negligen
t for not objecting to a particular line of questioning, yet he or she has had h
is or her previous objections are overruled.